How close is Crosby to top 5 status now?

[bobholly39]

What part of Hull, Richard, Howe, Beliveau and Mikita were competing for the same Art Ross trophies is not being understood here exactly?

In the 18 year period from 1950-1968 only 6 names appear on the Art Ross.
Howe 6
Mikita 4
Hull 3
Geoffrion 2
Moore 2
Beliveau 1

Richard doesn't make it on there because he was much more of a goal scorer than a points guy and he was up against a prime Howe for more than half of his career.
Much like OV in 09/10, suspension cost Richard the '55 Art Ross. Richard was ahead by 2 points at the time of the suspension. Geoffrion had 3 points in the final 3 games to edge him by 1.

Geoffrion's other Art Ross and Moore's 2 back to back were all from monster career seasons by both players.
It took Beliveau having one of the best overall seasons ever by a player not named Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux just to win his 1 Art Ross.
What does that tell you about what he was up against?

Remind me again who Crosby has CONSISTENTLY been competing for Art Ross trophies with again...

*Crickets*




Thornton
Crosby
OV
Sedin
Sedin
Malkin
St Louis
Kane
Benn

Vs

Howe
Hull
Beliveau
Richard
Mikita
Geoffrion
Moore

One of these lists is not like the other by juuuuust a little bit

There are different ways to look at things.

There is a LOT more competition in today's NHL then there was in the 50s. More elite players, more elite competition. Hence winning the art ross is more difficult.

Henrik Sedin had a career year. And beat out Crosby for the Ross. Yup. But was that a "weak" Art Ross? I don't think it was. It's generally considered a rather strong one. That year Crosby had 109 points to Sedin's 112, tied for 2nd place. Not that bad, and tiny margin of victory.
St-Louis? Sure but Crosby had the Ross in the bag in 13. That was unfortunate injury, so let's be serious.
Kane had a career year. And Crosby had a HORRENDOUS first 20 games (his fault, yup). But he did come pretty damn close to catching up in the 2nd half of the season and made a race out of it for 2nd place, finishing 3rd.
Benn. 87 points. Crosby 84 points. Crosby first in PPG that year. not a great year maybe, but still first in ppg and again "barely" beaten to ross.

There are more top stars in today's NHL who are able to put together a strong career year than there were back in the 50s and 60s. And as such, it's harder to dominate the art ross race now then in the past because the margin of error is non-existent.

Crosby is no Lemieux or Gretzky. Only 2 players in history capable of dominating the art ross race no matter what every year.

But ok if you want to argue in bad faith and throw a bunch of names out there and pretend like the reason Beliveau/Hull/Howe get a pass is because they had tougher competition.

You saying "only 6 names won the Ross between 1950 and 1968" counts for ZERO (zilch) if more than 6 names consistently beat out others. And plenty did. Beliveau doesn't only have 1 Art Ross because he finished 2nd or 3rd every other year to those 6 names. Same for Hull, and Howe. They all lost to much lesser players, by much bigger margins, and much more often than Crosby has. Let's look at their best years.

In 1958 Beliveau got surpassed in points and points per game by Henri Richard, Andy Bathgate, Bronco Horvath.
In 1960 Beliveau got passed in points By Hull but also Bronco Horvath
In 1961. Beliveau lost out to Geoffrion the art ross
in 1962. Beliveau only plays 43 games. But his ppg is below 1.0. Well out of top 5 in the league (less). Worst than any offensive season Crosby ever had, by far.
1963. Beliveau 67 points in 69 points. Well outside of top 5 in art Ross race, and well outside of top 5 in ppg. Again, worst than anything Crosby has ever done.

Bobby Hull.

1960 Art Ross. Great
1961. 56 points in 67 games. Outside top 5 in scoring or ppg. Much worst than any season by Crosby to date.
1962. Art Ross. Great
1963. 62 points in 65 games. Well outside top 5 in scoring or PPG. Much worst than any season by Crosby to date.
1964. 87 points in 70 games. Strong season, only beaten by Mikita
1965. 71 points in 61 games. Beaten by Norm Ullman in both points, and ppg, among others
1966. Art Ross. Great
1967. 80 points in 66 games. Beaten only by Mikita
1968. 75 points in 71 games. Outside of top 5 in scoring. Beaten by Ratelle, Gilbert and others.
1969. 107 points, 2nd place. But practically "lapped" by Esposito at 126 points. Nobody has really ever "lapped" Crosby like that
1970. 61 games, 67 points. horrible season, way worst than anything Crosby has done. Way outside of top 5 in scoring/ppg. Beaten by people like Goyette, Tkaczuk among others. The ross was won at 120 points, almost double his amount. Imagine Sidney Crosby scoring 80 points in a mostly full season, while someone else scoring close to 140? That's how much Bobby Orr beat him by (and yes I know it's Orr - but still he's a defenseman and a bunch of other forwards beat him by a lot, too).

I'm sorry but when i compare the records of Hull, Beliveau and Crosby - Crosby is FAR ahead when it comes to dominating offensively during the regular season, even when you consider competition. His consistency at the top is unmatched by the others.

 

[K Fleur]

Henrik Sedin had a career year. And beat out Crosby for the Ross. Yup. But was that a "weak" Art Ross? I don't think it was. It's generally considered a rather strong one. That year Crosby had 109 points to Sedin's 112, tied for 2nd place. Not that bad, and tiny margin of victory.
s.

It was not even remotely "weak":

Henrik Sedin's 09-10 season is the highest scoring ES season of the last 20 years. It's 4th highest over the last 25 years, and 14th highest over the last 30 years. Rather ridiculous considering the difference in scoring across those eras.

Not exactly weak competition there.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=133735391&postcount=538

***************


Remember, you are choosing to debate with a person who said they smile on the inside when Crosby gets cheapshotted(read injured).

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=133494117&postcount=253

 

[ViktorBaeArvidsson]

CROSBY SUCKS HES GARBAGE NOT EVEN NEAR TOP 5!!!!!!!

*i'm kidding btw

 

[billybudd]

Remember, you are choosing to debate with a person who said they smile on the inside when Crosby gets cheapshotted(read injured).

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=133494117&postcount=253

Charisma yes and the other word you're looking for is class.
Stevie had it, Crosby does not.

Sid has always been prone to tantrums, with less frequency now than in the past but he still has 'em. Add in the numerous instances of faking injuries and the stupid cheapshots he likes to sneak in.
Look at this past season. The back to back games with the spear and then the finger slash. Just idiotic behavior and what makes it worse is that everyone knows that if that is anyone other than Sid they are getting a couple of fines and possibly even a suspension but for Sid...nothing.
Everytime one of these things has happened, it takes away from him and drops his level of class to where he really doesn't have any left to the point that when you do see him get cheapshotted, out loud you say hey, that wasn't cool but inside you're actually smiling a bit. You just can't help yourself.

This is pretty disgusting. Pathological.

 

[Plural]

Wow, yeah that's pretty sad.

 

[Rhiessan71]

There are different ways to look at things.

There is a LOT more competition in today's NHL then there was in the 50s. More elite players, more elite competition. Hence winning the art ross is more difficult.

Then explain OV's dominance over that very same elite competition.
6 Rockets, 2 Runner-ups and 9 top-3 goal finishes in those same 12 seasons against that same competition.

I put a warning up earlier in this thread about trying this argument and how fast it would get demolished.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Remember, you are choosing to debate with a person who said they smile on the inside when Crosby gets cheapshotted(read injured).

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=133494117&postcount=253

I clearly said I like watching Crosby get roughed up a bit and getting a few extra taps and pokes.
I also followed that post up where I very clearly said that I don't wanna see him get injured.

 

[bobholly39]

Then explain OV's dominance over that very same elite competition.
6 Rockets, 2 Runner-ups and 9 top-3 goal finishes in those same 12 seasons against that same competition.

I put a warning up earlier in this thread about trying this argument and how fast it would get demolished.

Let's recap.

You said the reason Hull, Beliveau and Richard have 4 art ross combined is because they were competing against each other - and against other MUCH BETTER competition than Crosby ever had. ie implying that - if Beliveau didn't win one year, it's because Hull/Richard (or other top level talent like Mikita, Howe) beat him to it. In contrast it's pathetic the level of talent who beat Crosby (Sedin, Kane, Benn, Malkin, etc).

I showed you that is NOT THE CASE. ie - you are wrong. Beliveau, Hull and Richard have all been beaten repeatedly and consistently in the art ross race by much lesser talent than Crosby ever has.

You respond with: "i've been proven to be completely wrong, so let me change the subject and talk about OV instead!"

Ok. Just making sure we're on the same page.

I'll indulge you. Let's talk about OV.

In the past 10 or so year, there have mostly been 2 top end goal-scorers in the league. Ovechkin, and Stamkos. In contrast - there have been MANY top end scoring talents who are threats to Art Ross. So the competition for the Art Ross is a lot more present than it is for The Rocket. So yeah, Ovechkin dominated a weaker field when it comes to goal-scoring. So what? In the 2000s Lidstrom also won a bunch of Norris's against weaker competition. Things fluctuate.

 

[daver]

In the past 10 or so year, there have mostly been 2 top end goal-scorers in the league. Ovechkin, and Stamkos. In contrast - there have been MANY top end scoring talents who are threats to Art Ross. So the competition for the Art Ross is a lot more present than it is for The Rocket. So yeah, Ovechkin dominated a weaker field when it comes to goal-scoring. So what? In the 2000s Lidstrom also won a bunch of Norris's against weaker competition. Things fluctuate.

The connection between Rockets and Hart nominations is relevant here too.

OV outgoaled Crosby by over 50% from 2013 to 2106 yet had an inferior Hart record (1,2,6,23) vs. (1,2,2,6).

Throwing out Rocket trophies to try to match Crosby's elite seasons is a weak argument, especially from a poster who smiles when Crosby gets potentially career-ending, life altering injuries.

 

[Plural]

I'm actually surprised to see their Hart record being that close during those years. It's essentially one more great year for Crosby. I don't think anyone is thinking Ovechkin has been equally great player during those years so one would expect more difference in their Hart record.

Just goes to show how insanely difficult it is to separate yourself from competition. Crosby has done great in that regard. And I don't think the top end competition has been that bad.

 

[daver]

I'm actually surprised to see their Hart record being that close during those years. It's essentially one more great year for Crosby. I don't think anyone is thinking Ovechkin has been equally great player during those years so one would expect more difference in their Hart record.

Just goes to show how insanely difficult it is to separate yourself from competition. Crosby has done great in that regard. And I don't think the top end competition has been that bad.

OV would only get the slight nod in 14/15 over Crosby. 2013 speaks for itself, as does 13/14. 15/16 was also a clear win for Crosby.

I would rank their seasons as follows:

Crosby - 13/14
Crosby - 2013
OV - 2013
Crosby 15/16 tied with OV 14/15
Crosby - 14/15
OV - 2015/16
OV - 13/14

 

[Regal]

Then explain OV's dominance over that very same elite competition.
6 Rockets, 2 Runner-ups and 9 top-3 goal finishes in those same 12 seasons against that same competition.

I put a warning up earlier in this thread about trying this argument and how fast it would get demolished.

This argument doesn't hold. Why would elite Art Ross competition necessarily mean elite Rocket competition? If playmakers are the dominant scorers it would make sense

 

[Big Phil]

Gee BP. I know you have a love affair going with Crosby but stop reading things into my post that I never said. All I was referring to was the first 4 games of this years final where the Pens didn't look very good but were still lucky enough to come out with a tie. If they had lost all four then this thread would probably not exist.

I agree that Crosby had a great first 12 years but I prefer to wait and judge after a full career has been digested for a while. If you want to say Crosby is already a top 5 guy be my guest but don't expect me to agree with you.

We can check back in a few years.

I am saying he can be a top 5 guy. 12 years won't cut it, he'll need more, but he has kept pace with the crew that are usually ranked from 5-10.

Crosby is probably in the top 10-20 range now, inching his way up. He certainly has a chance to be in the top-10 all time players if he continues his current direction for a few more years.

I just can't see him anywhere near the top-5, however. How can we be putting him ahead of Bobby Hull or Jagr or Hasek? I just cannot see that.

The sad thing is that Cros didn't play more than 41 games a season for three seasons in a row, right smack in the onset of his prime years. That is terrible. This happened due to concussions and work-stoppages. The NHLPA and the owners should collectively punch themselves for their endless stupidity.

It is too bad he missed two big years to injury and then a freak accident in 2013 caused him to miss enough games that he didn't win the Art Ross. However, while he lost the Hart, he still won the Lindsay award in this season. No question about it he was the game's top player. Who had a better season than Sid in 2013? No one, and that includes missing 25% of the year.

But the thing is, we have to judge him by his first 12 years only. That's all we have, but we've already done the comparisons with Hull and Beliveau and such and Crosby does not look out of place and in some cases superior. It is well deserved to say he has a shot at top 5.

What about Jagr 12 first season ?

68: 5 Art Ross
87: 2 Art Ross

Top 10 pts finish:
68: 9-1-2-6-1-1-1-1-5
87: 6-1-3-2-3-1-3-3-2-7

Hart top 10 seasons:
68: 2-4-2-1-2-3
87: 1-6-3-1-5-2-2

Regular season
68: 875 game, 470 goal, 688 assist, 1158 pts
87: 782 game, 382 goal, 645 assist, 1027 pts

68: 0.537 gpg, 0.786 apg, 1.323 ppg
87: 0.489 gpg, 0.824 apg, 1.313 ppg

Playoff:
68: 140 game, 65 goal, 82 assist, 147 point
87: 148 game, 57 goal,107 assist, 164 point

68: 1.05 ppg
87: 1.11 ppg

During those 12 first year's in term of league average goal by game

During the games Jagr played the league average goal by games: 6.06
During the games Crosby played the league average goal by games: 5.53

Crosby seem ahead in both RS and playoff (it was almost neck to neck until I realized at the very end that most of Jagr game were not in the DPE for is 12 season, but in an average 10% higher scoring league than Crosby first 12 year's)

Considering that Jagr, 13-14-15 year's were arguably Jagr worst for is legacy (subpar regular season, only 6 playoff game with Washington) and that he went to the KHL, the fact that Crosby is already a little bit ahead put him in really good position to finish with a better overall career.

Thought of Jagr too, but I think the standard is so high that you almost have to hit the ground running from the get go. Jagr won an Art Ross in season 5. He had a slower start to his career. His first two years aren't elite. Year 3 and 4 he's inching his way up there and then he starts his prime in 1995. Excellent, but Crosby definitely started off better.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Playmakers

This argument doesn't hold. Why would elite Art Ross competition necessarily mean elite Rocket competition? If playmakers are the dominant scorers it would make sense

Elite playmakers require elite scorers and vice versa. Be it Beliveau and Geoffrion, Orr and Esposito,Trottier and Bossy, and so on.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I'm actually surprised to see their Hart record being that close during those years. It's essentially one more great year for Crosby. I don't think anyone is thinking Ovechkin has been equally great player during those years so one would expect more difference in their Hart record.

Just goes to show how insanely difficult it is to separate yourself from competition. Crosby has done great in that regard. And I don't think the top end competition has been that bad.

Since 2013 crosby has 1 2 2 2 5

 

[Regal]

Elite playmakers require elite scorers and vice versa. Be it Beliveau and Geoffrion, Orr and Esposito,Trottier and Bossy, and so on.

I wouldn't say that's true at all. And the best recent Art Ross winners and only 100 point scorers in the last four years, McDavid, Kane and Crosby, didn't have one by their side

 

[Canadiens1958]

Explains

I wouldn't say that's true at all. And the best recent Art Ross winners and only 100 point scorers in the last four years, McDavid, Kane and Crosby, didn't have one by their side

Explains why the winning Art Ross totals are so low.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/ross.d to the

Compare the last half of the 06 era scoring in a 70 game schedule with the present day scoring over 82 games.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/ross.html

You do not have dynamic combinations of playmaker/scorer. Lower percentage of McDavid's efforts get converted and so on down the line.

 

[Regal]

Explains why the winning Art Ross totals are so low.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/ross.d to the

Compare the last half of the 06 era scoring in a 70 game schedule with the present day scoring over 82 games.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/ross.html

You do not have dynamic combinations of playmaker/scorer. Lower percentage of McDavid's efforts get converted and so on down the line.

Top scorers have gone down partly due to PP, but to some degree I'd agree that talent has been more evenly spread out which hurts some of the top guys by usually having to carry lines on their own.

My point was more in relation to the comparison of competition between the Art Ross to the Rocket though. The fact that Ovechkin has dominated the field in goalscoring does not necessarily follow that the field for the Art Ross is at the same level. And if anything I'd argue that the lack of elite passer-shooter combos would hurt the goalscorer more as typically guys who drive play get their points regardless of wingers to some degree. The problem with Rheissen's arguments about the Art Ross competition is that they're typically focused on the names and not the numbers. The only real weak Art Ross year during Crosby's career was Benn in '15.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Objectives

Top scorers have gone down partly due to PP, but to some degree I'd agree that talent has been more evenly spread out which hurts some of the top guys by usually having to carry lines on their own.

My point was more in relation to the comparison of competition between the Art Ross to the Rocket though. The fact that Ovechkin has dominated the field in goalscoring does not necessarily follow that the field for the Art Ross is at the same level. And if anything I'd argue that the lack of elite passer-shooter combos would hurt the goalscorer more as typically guys who drive play get their points regardless of wingers to some degree. The problem with Rheissen's arguments about the Art Ross competition is that they're typically focused on the names and not the numbers. The only real weak Art Ross year during Crosby's career was Benn in '15.

Question of objectives. Ovechkin is a one-dimensional player who meets his objectives. Benn played with Seguin on a non-playoff team.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DAL/2015.html

Similar to the late 1940,s Blackhawks with Roy Conacher winning a scoring championship on a non-playoff team playing with Doug Bentley.

 

[golfortennis]

Top scorers have gone down partly due to PP, but to some degree I'd agree that talent has been more evenly spread out which hurts some of the top guys by usually having to carry lines on their own.

My point was more in relation to the comparison of competition between the Art Ross to the Rocket though. The fact that Ovechkin has dominated the field in goalscoring does not necessarily follow that the field for the Art Ross is at the same level. And if anything I'd argue that the lack of elite passer-shooter combos would hurt the goalscorer more as typically guys who drive play get their points regardless of wingers to some degree. The problem with Rheissen's arguments about the Art Ross competition is that they're typically focused on the names and not the numbers. The only real weak Art Ross year during Crosby's career was Benn in '15.

I disagree the goalscorers get hurt more. As long as the goal scorers get the puck, they're dangerous. And while not everyone can pass in a perfect spot for an efficient goal, guys can get the puck to the goal scorer in some fashion. Or the goal scorer can just decide to carry the puck himself. He's getting his goals.

The playmaker, on the other hand, can make the perfect pass, but if his winger has hands of stone, he's not getting points for passing. And the subject of this thread is the perfect example. How long was Kunitz on his line, or Pascal Dupuis? Players who with the right contract bring value to certain roles. But scoring goals is not one of them. The number of assists Crosby has lost due to their inability to score from his passes is quite large. There are a number of wingers who would have buried many of the chances. Further to that, both times Crosby decides to focus on shooting, he wins the Rocket.

They might "get their points" but they're not getting every point they could because guys can't finish. I've always thought, while Gretzky is the greatest player ever, and would not have lost any of his Ross' because of this, having Jari Kurri on his wing had to be good for 10-15 points a season in his heyday that other wingers would not have potted. Maybe we're talking about 200 instead of 215, 190 instead of 205. Still crazy numbers of course, but especially with today's goalies, it would be a tough sell to argue anyone would put up the same points passing to Kunitz as they would passing to Kurri, and I think that would even apply to Gretzky.

The wingers matter.

 

[Regal]

I disagree the goalscorers get hurt more. As long as the goal scorers get the puck, they're dangerous. And while not everyone can pass in a perfect spot for an efficient goal, guys can get the puck to the goal scorer in some fashion. Or the goal scorer can just decide to carry the puck himself. He's getting his goals.

The playmaker, on the other hand, can make the perfect pass, but if his winger has hands of stone, he's not getting points for passing. And the subject of this thread is the perfect example. How long was Kunitz on his line, or Pascal Dupuis? Players who with the right contract bring value to certain roles. But scoring goals is not one of them. The number of assists Crosby has lost due to their inability to score from his passes is quite large. There are a number of wingers who would have buried many of the chances. Further to that, both times Crosby decides to focus on shooting, he wins the Rocket.

They might "get their points" but they're not getting every point they could because guys can't finish. I've always thought, while Gretzky is the greatest player ever, and would not have lost any of his Ross' because of this, having Jari Kurri on his wing had to be good for 10-15 points a season in his heyday that other wingers would not have potted. Maybe we're talking about 200 instead of 215, 190 instead of 205. Still crazy numbers of course, but especially with today's goalies, it would be a tough sell to argue anyone would put up the same points passing to Kunitz as they would passing to Kurri, and I think that would even apply to Gretzky.

The wingers matter.

The difference is that playmakers don't have to rely on one shooter and can spread the offense around. Sure they'd be hurt by horrible wingers but that's not really the point and most stars aren't playing with scrubs.

Take Henrik Sedin's Art Ross win for instance. Daniel was a great running mate, but was a passer himself at times and missed part of the year. The goals were spread out among him, Burrows and the defense. Henrik's point totals were great that year, in line with the best Art Ross wins since the lockout strictly in terms of points, if not play. He was top competition for Crosby in terms of points, but he didn't create a high end Rocket contender at the same time.

Players also aren't so black and white. Kane for instance is generally a playmaker first, but is also a good goalscorer. In his Art Ross year he was elite at both, which means his year was more dominant in terms of point scoring than it was in terms of either goals or assists. And this is why Art Ross competition will almost invariably be more consistently elite than Rocket competition, because there's more ways to win and more types of players who can compete. You can have goalscorers, playmakers and more balanced offensive players compete whereas essentially only goalscorers with the odd balanced offensive player are going to create elite Rocket competition.

This is getting a bit off topic, so I'll try to bring it back to the original point. Why would elite Art Ross competition necessarily lead to elite Rocket competition? Considering playmakers like Sedin can spread the goals around and more balanced players like Kane can put up both high goal and assist totals, thus making their point totals that much greater, I see no reason to suggest that one follows the other. I don't think Ovechkin's goal scoring dominance shows anything about the competition for the Art Ross. Other than Benn's year, there's still been strong winners. And while Ovechkin has had great goalscoring years, there simply hasn't been great goalscoring competition for him in recent years, particularly with Stamkos injured/declining

 

[NoMessi]

There are different ways to look at things.

There is a LOT more competition in today's NHL then there was in the 50s. More elite players, more elite competition. Hence winning the art ross is more difficult.

Henrik Sedin had a career year. And beat out Crosby for the Ross. Yup. But was that a "weak" Art Ross? I don't think it was. It's generally considered a rather strong one. That year Crosby had 109 points to Sedin's 112, tied for 2nd place. Not that bad, and tiny margin of victory.
St-Louis? Sure but Crosby had the Ross in the bag in 13. That was unfortunate injury, so let's be serious.
Kane had a career year. And Crosby had a HORRENDOUS first 20 games (his fault, yup). But he did come pretty damn close to catching up in the 2nd half of the season and made a race out of it for 2nd place, finishing 3rd.
Benn. 87 points. Crosby 84 points. Crosby first in PPG that year. not a great year maybe, but still first in ppg and again "barely" beaten to ross.

There are more top stars in today's NHL who are able to put together a strong career year than there were back in the 50s and 60s. And as such, it's harder to dominate the art ross race now then in the past because the margin of error is non-existent.

Crosby is no Lemieux or Gretzky. Only 2 players in history capable of dominating the art ross race no matter what every year.

But ok if you want to argue in bad faith and throw a bunch of names out there and pretend like the reason Beliveau/Hull/Howe get a pass is because they had tougher competition.

You saying "only 6 names won the Ross between 1950 and 1968" counts for ZERO (zilch) if more than 6 names consistently beat out others. And plenty did. Beliveau doesn't only have 1 Art Ross because he finished 2nd or 3rd every other year to those 6 names. Same for Hull, and Howe. They all lost to much lesser players, by much bigger margins, and much more often than Crosby has. Let's look at their best years.

In 1958 Beliveau got surpassed in points and points per game by Henri Richard, Andy Bathgate, Bronco Horvath.
In 1960 Beliveau got passed in points By Hull but also Bronco Horvath
In 1961. Beliveau lost out to Geoffrion the art ross
in 1962. Beliveau only plays 43 games. But his ppg is below 1.0. Well out of top 5 in the league (less). Worst than any offensive season Crosby ever had, by far.
1963. Beliveau 67 points in 69 points. Well outside of top 5 in art Ross race, and well outside of top 5 in ppg. Again, worst than anything Crosby has ever done.

Bobby Hull.

1960 Art Ross. Great
1961. 56 points in 67 games. Outside top 5 in scoring or ppg. Much worst than any season by Crosby to date.
1962. Art Ross. Great
1963. 62 points in 65 games. Well outside top 5 in scoring or PPG. Much worst than any season by Crosby to date.
1964. 87 points in 70 games. Strong season, only beaten by Mikita
1965. 71 points in 61 games. Beaten by Norm Ullman in both points, and ppg, among others
1966. Art Ross. Great
1967. 80 points in 66 games. Beaten only by Mikita
1968. 75 points in 71 games. Outside of top 5 in scoring. Beaten by Ratelle, Gilbert and others.
1969. 107 points, 2nd place. But practically "lapped" by Esposito at 126 points. Nobody has really ever "lapped" Crosby like that
1970. 61 games, 67 points. horrible season, way worst than anything Crosby has done. Way outside of top 5 in scoring/ppg. Beaten by people like Goyette, Tkaczuk among others. The ross was won at 120 points, almost double his amount. Imagine Sidney Crosby scoring 80 points in a mostly full season, while someone else scoring close to 140? That's how much Bobby Orr beat him by (and yes I know it's Orr - but still he's a defenseman and a bunch of other forwards beat him by a lot, too).

I'm sorry but when i compare the records of Hull, Beliveau and Crosby - Crosby is FAR ahead when it comes to dominating offensively during the regular season, even when you consider competition. His consistency at the top is unmatched by the others.

He was never close to win that season

 

[golfortennis]

This is getting a bit off topic, so I'll try to bring it back to the original point. Why would elite Art Ross competition necessarily lead to elite Rocket competition? Considering playmakers like Sedin can spread the goals around and more balanced players like Kane can put up both high goal and assist totals, thus making their point totals that much greater, I see no reason to suggest that one follows the other. I don't think Ovechkin's goal scoring dominance shows anything about the competition for the Art Ross. Other than Benn's year, there's still been strong winners. And while Ovechkin has had great goalscoring years, there simply hasn't been great goalscoring competition for him in recent years, particularly with Stamkos injured/declining

What I was disagreeing with is the idea the playmakers are likely to be more likely to reach their potential in points as opposed to goal scorers. A goal scorer who scores 40-50 goals a year is likely to get that most years because their reliance on other players is not nearly the same as a playmaker's. Sure there can be other other players beyond a winger, but better players equal more points. If Crosby is passing to Hossa instead of Kunitz in 15, I'd say he's quite likely to be walking off with the Art Ross, mumps or otherwise.

 

[bobholly39]

The more I think about it the more I feel as though Crosby has a claim at #5 spot of all-time right now.

If Sidney Crosby retired tomorrow, and if we had to fully analyze his resume and take everything into account and compare it to the full career of anyone else - I think it holds up rather well.

I don't think he would be a consensus #5 obviously, but i think he definitely has an argument as of right now, and not even a weak one.

Some people argue Hasek at #5. And I can make the case for Crosby > Hasek as of today. Some people argue Jagr at#5, and I can make the case for Crosby > Jagr right now.

I even think there's a case to be made for Crosby > Beliveau (full career) right now.

He stacks up really well. His consistency at the top as being one of the best players in the league every year without fail is nearly unmatched in the history of hockey. Does anyone outside of Gretzky top him in that regards? Bourque did great as a defenseman, but as an overall player i don't think he was as close to the top of the league than Crosby has been through 12 years.

So yeah - if Crosby retires tomorrow, I think a very serious case can be made for him at #5. He has virtually no weaknesses in his resume. Maybe full top-end peak seasons aren't his strongest asset - but "peak level of play" is pretty damn strong, so i think that serves to counter it to some effect.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

The more I think about it the more I feel as though Crosby has a claim at #5 spot of all-time right now.

If Sidney Crosby retired tomorrow, and if we had to fully analyze his resume and take everything into account and compare it to the full career of anyone else - I think it holds up rather well.

I don't think he would be a consensus #5 obviously, but i think he definitely has an argument as of right now, and not even a weak one.

Some people argue Hasek at #5. And I can make the case for Crosby > Hasek as of today. Some people argue Jagr at#5, and I can make the case for Crosby > Jagr right now.

I even think there's a case to be made for Crosby > Beliveau (full career) right now.

He stacks up really well. His consistency at the top as being one of the best players in the league every year without fail is nearly unmatched in the history of hockey. Does anyone outside of Gretzky top him in that regards? Bourque did great as a defenseman, but as an overall player i don't think he was as close to the top of the league than Crosby has been through 12 years.

So yeah - if Crosby retires tomorrow, I think a very serious case can be made for him at #5. He has virtually no weaknesses in his resume. Maybe full top-end peak seasons aren't his strongest asset - but "peak level of play" is pretty damn strong, so i think that serves to counter it to some effect.

Yup. Crosby finished 1st in scoring as a 19 year old and 2nd as a 29 year old. That's serious longevity